In re Chandel B.
The consent of respondent to the adoption of his child was not required since he did not maintain “substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child” (
The court’s determination that it would be in the child’s best interests to free him for adoption is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]). There is no indication that respondent is capable of caring for his son and the record establishes that the child is doing well in his preadoptive home, which he shares with two of his siblings.
We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Concur—Saxe, J.P., Gonzalez, Sweeny, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.